Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Search for:
clear search

Docket Number

Key Dates

Filing Date

Settlement / Judgment Date

Terminating Date

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Case Details

Outcome

Issues

MORE▾

Document Details

Document Filing Date

MORE▾

Document Citation (Choose One)

Use this for most court reporters

S.Ct. reporter and WL only

LEXIS and L.Ed. only

Search for:
10163 cases, 65231 documents
Ordered by
DISABILITY RIGHTS
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Community Provider of Enrichment Services Incorporated

4:10-cv-00592 | U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Filed Date: Sept. 29, 2010

Closed Date: Sept. 15, 2016

On September 29, 2010, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (the “Commission” or “EEOC”), in the interests of several aggravated public parties, filed suit against the Community Provider of Enrichment Services, Inc. (“CPES”) alleging that CPES violated both Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“Civil Rights Act”). The case was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona where it was assigned to Distri…
IMMIGRATION AND/OR THE BORDER
Alianza Americas v. DeSantis

1:22-cv-11550 | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Filed Date: Sept. 20, 2022

Case Ongoing

This is a case about the relocation of about fifty immigrants from Texas to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, by chartered planes. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants—Florida officials and unidentified individuals—induced the immigrants to board two planes with promises of employment, housing, and educational opportunities at their destination, but that once the planes landed in Martha's Vineyard, the immigrants were left without any assistance and the defendants were unreachable.  On Se…
ELECTION/VOTING RIGHTS
United States v. The State of Georgia

1:21-cv-02575 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Filed Date: June 25, 2021

Case Ongoing

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed suit against the state of Georgia, the Georgia Secretary of State, and the Georgia State Election Board over voting procedures adopted by Georgia Senate Bill 202 (SB 202) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on June 25, 2021. DOJ alleged that SB 202 provisions violated the Voting Rights Act. SB 202 included restrictions on mailing, requesting, and submitting absentee ballots and prohibited distr…
EDUCATION
Fisk v. Board of Trustees of the California State University

3:22-cv-00173 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Filed Date: Feb. 7, 2022

Case Ongoing

Seventeen female varsity athletes sued San Diego State University (SDSU) for depriving women of equal athletic financial aid in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on February 7, 2022. The case was assigned to District Judge Todd W. Robinson.  Plaintiffs sought class certification for all current and former female students who participated in intercollegiate varsity athletics at SDSU in or since the 2019-20…
REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES
Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra

4:20-cv-00283 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Filed Date: March 29, 2020

Case Ongoing

On June 11, 2019 — more than nine years after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law—the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that health insurance cover preexposure prophylaxis  (PrEP) drugs without any cost-sharing arrangements such as co-payments or deductibles. On March 29, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, challenging the PrEP mandate as well as a prior contraception mandate. Plaintiffs, individuals a…
REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES
Planned Parenthood of Maryland, Inc. v. Azar

1:20-cv-00361 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Filed Date: Feb. 11, 2020

Case Ongoing

This is a case about the government’s adoption of the separate billing rule, which reinterpreted the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and required health insurance plans on the individual marketplace to send policyholders a separate bill and receive separate payment for the abortion-related portion of plan premiums. On February 11, 2020, Planned Parenthood of Maryland and individuals who wanted to maintain abortion coverage through their qualified health plans filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District C…
REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health

1:18-cv-01219 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Filed Date: April 23, 2018

Closed Date: Aug. 29, 2022

This is a case about challenges to abortion restrictions in Indiana. On March 25, 2018, the Indiana governor signed Indiana Senate Enrolled Act No. 340 into law, which required physicians to report “all abortion complications.” The act defined abortion complications as “any adverse physical or psychological condition arising from the induction or performance of an abortion” and imposed licensing consequences on providers who failed to report after July 1, 2018, and criminal consequences beginni…
REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES
Comprehensive Health v. Hawley

1716-CV24109 | Missouri state trial court

Filed Date: Oct. 10, 2017

Closed Date: June 28, 2019

On October 10, 2017, the ACLU, the ACLU of Missouri, and Planned Parenthood filed suit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, challenging a new abortion restriction that was scheduled to take effect on October 24, 2017. This mandate, often referred to as the “same-physician requirement,” would require a patient to receive certain state-scripted information in-person from the physician providing her medical care, at least 72 hours before an abortion. Plaintiffs argue that this mandate…
REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES
June Medical Services LLC v. Caldwell

3:14-cv-00525 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

Filed Date: Aug. 22, 2014

Case Ongoing

This is a case challenging an abortion restriction in the state of Louisiana. Act 620 prevented doctors from providing abortion services in the state unless they secured admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they provide abortion care. On August 22, 2014, three women's reproductive health clinics and two individual doctors who perform abortions filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs sued the Attorney General of Lo…
REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health

1:16-cv-00763 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Filed Date: April 7, 2016

Closed Date: July 18, 2022

This case challenged new abortion restrictions in Indiana. On April 7, 2016, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (PPINK) and two medical professionals filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs sued the Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, the prosecutors of Marion, Lake, Monroe, and Tippecanoe Counties, and the individual members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, all in their official capacities. Represe…